WCQF: Edmonton Oilers [PAC2] vs LA Kings [PAC3] - Oilers Win 4-2

[Major Major]

Doesn't it hit ekholm's ass on the way down to the ice anyway? Absolutely the right call. If you need to stare at a puck in the air and contemplate Newtonian physics for 10 minutes, you probably just need to let the goal stand.

[dustygoon]

This line of thinking is hilarious…

It's a play where the greatest player in the world is two feet away as it happens and his arm comes straight up in the air because he knows that it hit the stick, otherwise he wouldn't put his arm in the air he would keep playing," Woodcroft said. "It appears to me in the video that the puck is going straight up in a trajectory and it deadens. In the end I'm going to go with the greatest player in the world who is three feet away."

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

That’s conclusively a high stick. The only way the puck can change rotation like that is by being acted upon by an outside force, and the stick is the only possibility. Airflow from the sticking waving close by isn’t enough. Surprised they let that stand.

Thank god though!

Except it isn’t conclusively a high stick or it would have been overturned. The puck doesn’t change rotation in every video I have seen.

[Moneyhands23]

Great result, but the Kings have a lot more work to do.

[activeStick]

Lol Nurse, twisting himself into a pretzel, culminating to his determination that the best position to be in would be on one knee, with his back to the shooter while facing his own goalie

https://twitter.com/user/status/1649739942048800770

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Great result, but the Kings have a lot more work to do.

Hopefully they get Fiala back soon. That would be huge for them

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

Except it isn’t conclusively a high stick or it would have been overturned. The puck doesn’t change rotation in every video I have seen.

It changes from rotating up-down to side-side. The ability to see it hit the stick is inconclusive, but it conclusively had to have hit the stick.

https://twitter.com/josheggy/status/1649647216238252032

https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comm...puck_rotation/

That's why I find it odd that smarmy Woodcroft resorted to such a stupid argument. What an insufferable personality.

Perhaps this is why it got upheld though. Haven't seen a replay extend this far.

Originally Posted by Major Major

Doesn't it hit ekholm's ass on the way down to the ice anyway?

[Tkachukwagon]

LA wins the next game to go up 3-1, bringing the final game of the series back to Edmonton where the fans get to witness their team lose in person, ending the playoffs for another year.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I've said it a bunch of times, I'll say it again: the Kings are probably the most under-rated team in the NHL.

When they stomped us 8-2 was probably the worst beat down we got all season.

They smothered us all over the ice and kept up their offensive play and pace was one of the best opposition performances I seen all year.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The biggest thing to me with that all too is even if it was a high stick it really has no impact on the goal being scored, the puck hits Ekholm in the back and then he attempts to play it, and he gives it away.

They are acting like it was high sticked directly into the net.

They had a full twenty seconds to get the puck back and do something. I'd understand the outrage if it went directly into the net, but it was such a nothing play.

And Woodcroft's calling McDavid "the best player in the game" over and over is so weird, just say your captain or something, does his ego need to be stroked that much?

[Bonded]

Oilers shouldn’t argue with the war room seeing as they all agreed Coleman kicked it in

[Red_Baron]

I still don't see the distinct kicking motion...

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It changes from rotating up-down to side-side. The ability to see it hit the stick is inconclusive, but it conclusively had to have hit the stick.

https://twitter.com/josheggy/status/1649647216238252032

https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comm...puck_rotation/

That's why I find it odd that smarmy Woodcroft resorted to such a stupid argument. What an insufferable personality.

Perhaps this is why it got upheld though. Haven't seen a replay extend this far.

I honestly can't see what you're seeing to say it had to have hit a stick.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I've said it a bunch of times, I'll say it again: the Kings are probably the most under-rated team in the NHL.

They are as complete as there is without an single elite player on the roster. Solid depth everywhere.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

They had a full twenty seconds to get the puck back and do something. I'd understand the outrage if it went directly into the net, but it was such a nothing play.

And Woodcroft's calling McDavid "the best player in the game" over and over is so weird, just say your captain or something, does his ego need to be stroked that much?

The logical fallacy of the argument from authority.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Camronius

That's not how the rule works. The opposing team would have to be in control of the puck, hitting his a$$ doesn't count as control.

Regardless, haha Edmonton!!

After the alleged high stick contact, wasn’t there a battle along the boards between Ekholm and a Kings player for puck possession, with players on both sides probably touching the puck before LA comes up with it? Almost like a face-off…
It’s not like the high stick directed the puck to the goal scorer - if it did actually contact the puck, it probably had very little effect on where the puck landed. So at worst, it’s like a minor infraction missed by a ref in the middle of a scrum - something that happens all the time.

[Paulie Walnuts]

I hope they keep calling penalties all of them.

This is what the Oilers and Oilers media likely Elliott's Freeman wanted.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

Except it isn’t conclusively a high stick or it would have been overturned. The puck doesn’t change rotation in every video I have seen.

If you focus on the stick and not watching the puck, the stick moves when the puck hits it. Happy with the result though. The play doesn’t affect the play in any way.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I honestly can't see what you're seeing to say it had to have hit a stick.

Yeah. Do a slow mo on a coin flip and I bet it looks similar. Don’t see how you can conclusively say it hits his stick. Looks like it runs out of gas, peaks, and reverses which it was about to anyways. I think if the stick completely reversed the pucks direction then you would see it bounce down off of it.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It changes from rotating up-down to side-side. The ability to see it hit the stick is inconclusive, but it conclusively had to have hit the stick.

https://twitter.com/josheggy/status/1649647216238252032

https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comm...puck_rotation/

That's why I find it odd that smarmy Woodcroft resorted to such a stupid argument. What an insufferable personality.

Perhaps this is why it got upheld though. Haven't seen a replay extend this far.

It's kind of like when a puck is in the goalie's pads and that pad is in the crease, if they can't see the puck in the pads they can't call it a goal. They need to see it. In this case you can't see the stick hitting the puck. So hey, maybe Newton's first law could be fallible